Ji Young Cho and Eun-Hee Lee’s “Reducing Confusion about Grounded Theory and Qualitative Content Analysis: Similarities and Differences” is a very welcome read in comparison to the last article assigned to us (sorry). Cho and Lee take the initiative in clarifying the differences between Grounded Theory and Qualitative Content Analysis by comparing and contrasting both in “six areas: a) background and philosophical basis, b) unique characteristics of each method, c) goals and rationale of each method, d) data analysis process, e) outcomes of the research, and f) evaluation of trustworthiness of research” (2). In doing so, they’re able to achieve their goal of thoroughly distinguishing each one as its own individual method, to the benefit of novice researches such as myself.
An aspect of Grounded Theory that stands out to me the most is the relationship between it’s “two unique characteristics: constant comparative analysis and theoretical sampling,” as it seems to me to be one of the most direct (if not painstakingly involved) ways to find the answers a researcher is looking for (4). Maybe I’m biased to think so, but I’m the kind of person who learns best by practicing and becoming familiar with the “rhythm” and “feel” of whatever it is I’m trying to learn, so the idea of a method that basically translates that action into research is very appealing to me. Also, I admire how these characteristics lead into and feed into each other in a circular way, functioning as a sort of engine that drives the research while the driver (researcher) determines the directions to take after receiving the data. Another aspect of Grounded Theory that I find appealing is it’s openness and the freedom of approach it provides researchers, allowing them to tackle their research from unique perspectives instead of through rigid frameworks. I’m a very “think on my feet” kind of person as well, so the idea of being able to freely modify my approach as I see fit (within reason) is very in line with my character and general approach to life. It’s honestly probably the most appealing method to myself as an individual that we’ve covered in class so far.
That being said, I would be very remiss not to mention the “weaknesses” of this method as well. Even though I’m quite fascinated by it, I do have to admit that the amount of time and patience needed to research using this method is something I can’t even imagine having at the moment. For lack of better words, this feels like it’ll be a full time job and a half depending on what the research reveals or how long the research has to go on for. Additionally, this is not a very beginner friendly method, and so, as great as it sounds, I imagine actually putting it into practice would be a more stressful undertaking than I’m currently imagining. There’s even the risk of being unable to find enough data to continue the research after spending so much time on it. Despite all of these drawbacks though, in a perfect world where I could research in any way I want, this would most likely be my go-to method.
While writing this blog post, I listened to Ryo Fukui’s Scenery (1976), a jazz album I’ve loved to listen to while writing since I discovered it in undergrad. I also love the cover for this album, as it’s simple but striking, and was what drew me to listen to the album in the first place; it might not be right to judge a book by its cover, but it just might be okay to judge an album by one.
